OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the deduction under section 80G of the Act stating that CSR expenditure incurred u/s 135 of Companies Act is categorically disallowed under section 37 of the Act, and, therefore, on similar logic deduction under section 80G cannot be allowed. Learned Assessing Officer, relied on CBDT Circular No. 01/2015 dt. 21.01.2015 i.e., Explanatory Notes

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

5. Aggrieved, the assessees filed these appeals, stating that the assessees are not claiming the contribution to the trust as business expenditure and in compliance with the proviso to section 37(1) of the Act, the assessees suo moto disallowed the same, but since there is no bar in the Act, from claiming this expenditure as deduction under section 80G

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

5. Aggrieved, the assessees filed these appeals, stating that the assessees are not claiming the contribution to the trust as business expenditure and in compliance with the proviso to section 37(1) of the Act, the assessees suo moto disallowed the same, but since there is no bar in the Act, from claiming this expenditure as deduction under section 80G

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowed the same, but since there is no bar in the Act, from claiming this expenditure as deduction under section 80G of the same, such a claim cannot be denied. 5. Learned AR further argued that there is no bar on claiming CSR expenditure as deduction if it falls within the scope of section

HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.302/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Hsbc Electronic Data Processing Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aaach8235M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act and the second issue is in respect of non-grant of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). On the aspect of 80G of the Act learned CIT(A) noted that on verification of the copy of 80G of the Act certificate for deduction under section 80G(5)(vi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MADHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.302/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Hsbc Electronic Data Processing Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aaach8235M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act and the second issue is in respect of non-grant of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). On the aspect of 80G of the Act learned CIT(A) noted that on verification of the copy of 80G of the Act certificate for deduction under section 80G(5)(vi

TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi[Through Video Conferencing At Delhi] आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.2178/H/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Trinity Infra Ventures P. Murali & Company Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, First Floor Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82 ….. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No. Aabcg 1937 G Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(1), ….. "त् यथ"/Respondent Hyderabad

disallowing the deduction claim u/s 80G for Rs.26,82,500/-. 6. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the rule of one time approval u/s 80G would also I.T.A. No. 2178/H/2017 :- 3 -: apply to the assessee for the A.Y 2013-14 even though the impugned certificate in the assessee’s case has been issued on 25.06.2008 i.e., much

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

80G and 80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent of Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of Rs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and made the addition accordingly and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

CHILDREN OF DECCAN FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

5)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Case called twice. None appears at assessee's behest. It is accordingly proceeded exparte. 3. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that the CIT(Exemptions) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting its section 12AA and 80G registration(s), we notice that with able assistance

SEW FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.499/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sew Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions), Ward 1(4) Pan:Aaats7433H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V Siva Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Coimbatore, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Coimbatore, 27-01-2025 Is Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

80G were available in return of income. The learned CIT (A) further ought to have seen that Appellant’s accounts were audited by C.A whose details are furnished in the return of income. Hence, , denying exemption u/s 11 to the Appellant and restricting corpus donations of Rs.28,73,338/- by the Assessing Officer is not justified on the ground that

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

vi) Karvy Data Mangement Services vii) Suprawin Technologies Limited viii) Sundaram Business Services Pvt Limited ix) Tata Consulting Engineers Limited x) Tata Elxsi Limited xi) Cosmic Global Limited xii) BNR Udyog Limited 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds on incorrect selection of functionally dissimilar comparable companies while benchmarking the ITES Services (ITeS) segment of the Appellant, on the facts

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

80G and 80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent of Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of Rs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and made the addition accordingly and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

80G and 80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent of Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of Rs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and made the addition accordingly and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

ANDHRA PRADESH BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

5. The assessee challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) before the ITAT. The ITAT, Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 29.01.2019 in ITA.Nos.665 & 878/Hyd./2018 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for both the assessment years and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the letters filed by the assessee from various Officers

ANDHRA PRADESH BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance of same u/s.40a(iib). Further, it is stated that there is no exclusive levy of privilege fee on APBCL to attract provisions of section 40a(iib). In support of this contention, APBCL has filed letter issued by Commissioner Excise & Prohibition as additional evidence. Hon'ble ITAT has set aside the issue to the file of AO with a direction